The Planetization Structure, Blueprint and Plan Provides
the New Coordinates and Scaffold to Change the World

3rd
Millennium, 2100 AD

Skullduggery
Human Starvation,
Genocide and Barbarism of the Civilized

These things must be chased out off Humanity's Existence

Stand with Our Humanity and Destroy the System
that Destroys Humanity

The
People vs The Banks - First Anniversary

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, April 15, 2006.

Exactly a year ago today, on April 15, 2005, we filed the biggest class
action suit in Canada - "The People vs The Banks." This class action
created shock waves in heart of the world's banking business that deals
in unlawfully created, non-tangible, non-existent digital money.

The class action involves millions of people in Canada. Despite the
mainstream media's continued bias reporting, the news of the class
action suit has traveled all over the world. The whole world is
watching, waiting to see how the banks and the courts are going to stop
John-Ruiz: Dempsey from proceeding with this major lawsuit.

The suit arises from the fact that banks as credit-lenders flourish only
because of fraud and deception, breach of contract, deception, unjust
enrichment, unlawful conversion and illegal creation of money. The
Plaintiff (as well as the other millions of people), the "borrower" is
always the source of the principal amount of any alleged loan by virtue
of his "promise" to pay (the "promissory note"), from which a negotiable
instrument is generated, i.e. "money," pursuant to commonly accepted
banking practice which the credit-lender then converts into another form
(bank draft, cashier's check) in accordance with their lending policies
which is then reissued in the form of a "loan." This "loan" is nothing
more than accounting entries on the bank's ledgers, because the
financial institutions like the defendant banks, loans nothing of
substance, and are forbidden by banking regulations from loaning the
bank's cash or assets.

Money simply does not exist. What we call money, the Canadian bank note
they call "legal tender" is not money. It has no intrinsic value. It
costs two cents to make a five dollar bill as well as it is for a
hundred dollar bill. It is money by decree; it is money only because the
government says it is money. Worse, in this case, the "money" in
question in this lawsuit is the privately created, digital, computer
generated money surreptitiously created by the banks and "loaned" to
their unsuspecting borrowers with criminal interest at no cost to
themselves.

As far as the representative Plaintiff, John-Ruiz: Dempsey is concerned,
the People of Canada do not owe the banks any debt or money. It was the
other way around. John says: "How can we owe them anything when we never
received anything of any value [substance] from these banks?" The money
which was assumed to have been credited into the borrower's account was
derived from "thin air" - God's money, or money that never belonged to
the banks at all. The banks have no legal right to use God's money and
pass them on to the unsuspecting borrowers and call it a loan and then
start charging usury. This is nothing but pure skullduggery.

"Only God can create something of value out of nothing.no action will
lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a
fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction to which Plaintiff [the
bank] was a party." Per Justice Mahoney in First National Bank of
Montgomery v. Jerome Daly, 12/07/1968.

In First National Bank above, (more popularly known as the Credit River
decision) further stated: "The [bank's] act of creating credit is not
authorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States, is
unconstitutional and void, and is not lawful consideration in the eyes
of the law to support anything or upon which any lawful right can be
built." - Justice Martin V. Mahoney.

The above Minnesota trial court's decision holding the federal reserve
act unconstitutional and void; holding the National Banking Act
unconstitutional and void; declaring a mortgage acquired by the First
National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its
business, along with the foreclosure and the sheriff's sale to be void.
This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all
private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and state
bonds held by the Federal Reserve, national and state banks to be null
and void. This amounts to an emancipation of the nation from personal,
national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every
American (as well as Canadian) owes it to himself, his country, and to
the people of the world for that matter to study this decision very
carefully and to understand it, for upon it hangs the question of
freedom or slavery.

The above statement by Justice Mahoney also holds true in Canada because
there is no law in Canada, whether federal or provincial that remotely
suggest that it is lawful for any bank to create money out of thin air
and then use this created money as valuable consideration whereby they
could now loan this created money as principal and then charge their
unsuspecting victims interest for the rest of their lives! This is
legalized slavery.

An earlier decision by the Supreme Court of Canada which dealt with the
same issue of lack of consideration per Henry J.: ".I know of no law to
oblige me to pay it. When I deliver and execute a note, I am presumed to
have received a consideration for it, and I am therefore bound to pay
the legal holder or endorsee, but it would be contrary to every
equitable, and I may say legal, principle to make me pay in the other
case, where I received no value, or did no act from which such may be
presumed." Scott v. R. (1878), 2 S.C.R. 349.

The People have a strong case. The only problem is money, and the banks
have lots of it. The banks have been known to spend $100,000.00 or more
trying to collect a $5,000.00 claim. The banks simply cannot afford to
have any precedents. They can afford to pay their highly paid lawyers
and perhaps even bribe the judges in order to achieve their evil goals.

Just recently, the banks and The People were compelled to appear before
Madam Justice Garson, the assigned case management judge who heard the
banks' lawyers argue that the statement of claim should be struck in
whole or in part. The banks argue that the People's claim has no merit
based on their flimsy arguments that the pleadings are either vexatious,
frivolous, scandalous and abuse of process. However they all failed to
show why the claims are vexatious, frivolous, scandalous and abuse of
process.

John and his team, submitted the truth, that the court has no
jurisdiction to hear or decide the case simply because the judge herself
is in direct conflict of interest. Prior to Judge Garson becoming a
judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, she worked for one of
the defendant banks, TD Canada Trust. John filed a motion to have Garson
recused. This motion was intended to be heard by the Chief Justice
himself. Notwithstanding, Garson took it upon herself to decide on the
motion to recuse without any notice of hearing being filed which
violates the maxim: "nemo judex in sua causa" which means that one
cannot be the judge of his/her own cause. Garson saw nothing wrong with
that.

During the last hearing on April 6, 2006, John personally served Garson
a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. John and others filed this
lawsuit against Garson in her personal capacity for interfering with
John's personal right of unlimited contract with his principals. The
suit also named another judge, Justice James Williams who, without
proving any jurisdiction or proof of claim or evidence against John
decided to grant an injunction against him from representing other
people in court because he is not a member of the BAR or law society.
With this writ filed against Garson as a defendant, this judge is now in
clear conflict without any excuse.

At the hearing on April 6, John and the others told Garson they will not
accept any decision or order made or done while she is in direct
conflict of interest and without proper jurisdiction. However, knowing
how she made her previous decisions that have no foundation in law or
fact, it will not come as a surprise if this judge puts her blindfold
and ignore the law in order to give the banks a great favour. The whole
world will have the opportunity to see whether or not the courts deserve
the kind of respect they think we owed them. Nedless to say, the ball is
in
their court.

Whatever happens however, this is only the beginning. The greatest
battle, "The People vs. The Banks" has only begun. This battle will
continue until the tables of the money changers have been overturned
once more. If God be for us, who can be against us? May God Bless Us
All.

It is the game of
“World Control”. It is a serious game and the stakes are the highest
imaginable, because we stand to lose our Rights to “Life, Liberty and
the Pursuit of Happiness”. In the 18th century, when the
American Colonies were suffering at the hands of a despotic King, they
knew what they were entitled to under English Common Law which has, as
it’s foundation, the Charters of Liberty such as Magna Carta 1215,
Petition of Right 1627, Habeas Corpus 1640 and the Bill of Rights 1688,
and that “the glory of English law” (as Sir William Blackstone wrote)
has always been Trial by Jury. For megalomaniacs to take over the
world, they must first dispose of these icons which have indelibly
confirmed the Order and the Rule of Law according to the Christian
perspective. If we are going to defeat the Forces of Evil, we need to
understand and hold to the Levels of Jurisdiction.

THE RULE OF LAW

“The supremacy of
law. A feature attributed to the UK constitution by Professor Dicey (Law
of the Constitution, 1885). It embodied three concepts: the absolute
predominance of regular law, so that the government has no arbitrary
authority over the citizen; the equal subjection of all (including
officials) to the ordinary law administered by the ordinary courts; and
the fact that the citizen’s personal freedoms are formulated and
protected by the ordinary law rather than by abstract constitutional
declarations.”

(Oxford Reference, A
Dictionary of Law, Oxford University Press)

WHO IS THE LAW?

The Latin word, “iuris”,
is translated into English as meaning “law, right, justice; law court;
jurisdiction, authority”. In the movie, “The Verdict”, the actor, Paul
Newman, stands in front of the Jury and says to them, “You are the
law.”. A Jury is made up of 12 men and women who are the equals of the
men and women who are the plaintiffs and defendants in a court action,
and have been brought together to judge the laws and the facts presented
to them.

IT’S ALL A QUESTION
OF SOVEREIGNTY

Sovereignty is the
ultimate authority to make and impose laws.

WHO HAS SOVEREIGNTY
OVER WHOM AND WHAT?

That is to say, WHO
rules? In a THEOCRACY, GOD rules. In a DEMOCRACY, People rule. In a
BUREACRACY, officials rule. And, it’s all a matter of seniority or, in
other words, superiority in standing.

AT Level One: GOD
over Man:-

GOD created Man. GOD
is superior to Man, ie: to a natural person.

AT Level Two: Man
over Parliament:-

Man created
Parliament. Man is superior to Parliament, ie: to an artificial person

(iii) A Man
cannot sit in judgment of another Man, but GOD has made provision for a
congregation, ie: a Jury, to do so.

(iv) A Man,
being a natural person, cannot be a Corporation, ie: an artificial
person. Therefore, Judges can never be “> Man” and to allow
Judges to judge a Man, because that would be incompatible with the
sequence of SUPERIORITY.

(v) “Hominum
caus jus constitum est” - a legal maxim translates to “Law is
established for the benefit of man”. This is the prime objective of the
Law.

(vi) Another
legal maxim says, “Nemo admittendis est inhabilitare seipsum” which
translates to “No one is allowed to incapacitate himself”. Therefore, a
Man (ie: a natural person) cannot be an artificial person, which would
incapacitate him and deny him of his Right, as a Freeman, to Trial by
Jury.

(vii) Still
more legal maxims say such things as, “When laws imposed by the State
fail, we must act by the Law of Nature”, “The Law punishes falsehood”,
“The more common the evil, the worse”, “The greatest enemies to Peace
are force and wrong”,.....and, of course, “Rights never die”.

(viii) Magna
Carta put it correctly by saying “No Freeman shall be.... unless by the
legal judgment of his own equals indeed the law of the land.”

(ix) So, when
a Man goes into a court and the Magistrate or Judge tries to make out
that he has jurisdiction over you, you tell him, “You are at Level
Three in the ‘pecking order’. I am at Level Two. I have jurisdiction
over you – not you over me. I have the inalienable Right to Trial by
Jury - and, if I don’t want to avail myself of a Jury, I’ll give my
consent to that effect. Until then, do not exceed your jurisdiction.”

************************************

THE LEVELS OF
JURISDICTION/SOVEREIGNTY ARE:-

1. GOD or
THEOCRACY where GOD rules.

2. MAN or
DEMOCRACY where People rule.

3.
PARLIAMENT or BUREAUCRACY where Officials rule.

4.
CORPORATIONS where these entities rule nothing.

************************************

THE NEW WORLD
ORDER:-

So that the World
may be ruled by Officials, it is necessary to eliminate Levels 1 and 2
in the psyche of Man, with orchestrated, insidious and determined
programs of propaganda and prohibition. The “evil counsellors, judges
and ministers”, described in the Bill of Rights 1688, are once again
systematically undermining and eliminating the laws and the liberties of
the People.

The Media and the
Schools are playing their parts in these programs of disinformation and
mischief to mislead us and our children by devaluing morals and crushing
our ability to be free and sovereign human beings.

In the USA, many
have been duped into surrendering Sovereignty to their elected
representatives under the illusion of having a “Republic”, ie: they have
been drawn into believing that Acts of Parliament overrule their own
Common Law. In Courts, “evil counsellors and judges” reinforce this
deception by proclaiming categorically that, “Statute Law overrules
Common Law” .... in other words that, “Level 3 Law overrules Level 2
Law”.

Our Courts are where
we must fight to protect and preserve our Rights. The “evil counsellors
and judges” have no intention of honouring their Oaths of Office, which
is to “well and truly serve” the Queen (ordained by Coronation) and to
“do right to all manner of people”, but are totally embroiling in the
Drive for a New World Order. It is their role to eliminate Level 1 and
Level 2 Sovereignty and have themselves, as Level 3 persons, with power
over us. By relegating People to Level 4 impotence, by invoking their
Level 3 Admiralty/Commercial Law in our Courts, the legal piranhas wreak
their destruction.

We must never forget
that GOD has given us this Level 2 Jurisdiction....this gift of
Service. If we deny this gift, or say that this gift is not important,
we are actually insulting and disobeying GOD.

If we are going to
love GOD and love our neighbours as ourselves, we have no choice but to
fight the Forces of Evil because “the only way for evil to triumph is
that good men do nothing” (Edmund Burke 1729 – 1797).